Hamas agrees to phased Gaza disarmament plan as Israel holds back

Gaza: Hamas has signalled its readiness to accept a framework that would ultimately see it hand over its weapons in Gaza, marking a potentially significant shift in the movement’s position — but the proposed deal remains hostage to a fundamental dispute over who moves first.

Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official involved in the negotiations, told Reuters on Friday that the group was prepared to accept what he described as a “difficult and painful” agreement. He stopped short, however, of endorsing the term “disarmament” without conditions, saying implementation would depend on Israel first fulfilling commitments under an earlier ceasefire agreement.

Under the framework, Hamas would place its weapons in storage under the authority of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a technocratic Palestinian body established to oversee the territory. The arrangement would also involve an international stabilisation force entering Gaza and the dismantling of armed militias backed by Israel.

But Hamas insists the sequence matters.

Hamad said Israel must first halt its attacks, withdraw its forces to the positions they occupied in October and allow increased humanitarian and commercial supplies into Gaza. Only then, he said, would Hamas proceed with handing over its weapons.

“We insisted to the mediators that Israel must abide by the agreement,” Hamad told Reuters.

That position directly clashes with the Israeli stance. An Israeli political source said on Thursday that Israel would not withdraw behind the so-called Yellow Line before Hamas is disarmed and Gaza is demilitarised — leaving the two sides once again facing the same question that has derailed previous negotiations: who acts first?

The dispute emerged after US President Donald Trump announced that his Board of Peace had reached a “major milestone” towards the complete disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. Trump said the process would be carried out in phases alongside a gradual Israeli military withdrawal, with an International Stabilization Force and a new Palestinian security structure helping to oversee the transition. Egypt, Qatar and Turkey played key mediating roles.

The announcement was immediately tempered by uncertainty. While Washington presented the development as a breakthrough, Hamas characterised the arrangement as a comprehensive framework whose implementation remains conditional. Israel has also yet to publicly endorse the proposal, while officials close to the government have expressed reservations over its sequencing and security guarantees.

A Long-Standing Dispute Over Disarmament

The latest proposal represents a significant evolution from Hamas's earlier position in negotiations over Trump's Gaza peace framework.

The broader plan envisages a demilitarised Gaza governed by a Palestinian technocratic administration, backed by international security arrangements and a major reconstruction programme. The White House says the NCAG is already being established to restore public services, rebuild civilian institutions and prepare Gaza for longer-term governance.

Washington has also presented the International Stabilization Force as a central component of the transition. Israel agreed earlier this week to allow such a multinational force into parts of Gaza not under its control, although the deployment and participation of individual countries remain subject to Israeli approval.

The framework therefore goes well beyond simply taking weapons out of Hamas's hands. It envisages a broader political and security transformation of Gaza — from the administration of the territory to the policing of its streets and the eventual reconstruction of infrastructure devastated by the war.

The White House has described the objective as establishing a secure, demilitarised Gaza while creating the conditions for a new Palestinian administration to govern the territory.

Netanyahu Faces a Difficult Choice

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the emerging arrangement presents a particularly difficult political calculation.

Any agreement that requires Israeli troops to withdraw before Hamas has surrendered its weapons risks opposition from powerful members of Netanyahu's right-wing coalition. But refusing the framework could prolong a war that Washington is now attempting to bring to a definitive end.

The disagreement is already visible within Israel's political establishment.

Moshe Sa’ada, a member of Netanyahu's Likud party, told public broadcaster Kan News that Israel would not move until Hamas was disarmed and its weapons, tunnels and infrastructure dealt with.

“Israel says it will not take any action until Hamas is disarmed with its weapons, tunnels and infrastructure and we all understand the complexity of this,” Sa’ada said.

He argued that Hamas was seeking to reverse the order of implementation by demanding an Israeli withdrawal before disarming, and maintained that he still believed there would ultimately be “no other option” in Gaza “apart from military rule and end-to-end occupation.”

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has been even more hostile to the emerging arrangement. Before Trump's announcement, he wrote on X: “You only talk with Nazis through the crosshairs – and no other way.”

He added: “The only solution in Gaza to which Israel is willing to be a partner is encouraging emigration and destroying Hamas.”

The Humanitarian Pressure Behind Hamas's Position

The negotiations come as Gaza remains under immense humanitarian strain after nearly three years of war.

Hamas's latest leadership changes have also altered the political calculations surrounding the negotiations. Khalil al-Hayya, a senior Gaza-based figure, has emerged as the movement's leader, at a moment when Palestinian officials involved in the talks believe the organisation is facing pressure to make one of the most consequential decisions in its history.

For civilians in Gaza, however, the diplomatic language of roadmaps, phases and security arrangements has so far offered little reassurance.

Residents interviewed by Reuters expressed deep scepticism after Trump's announcement, pointing to continued Israeli military action and the gap between statements made by negotiators and conditions on the ground. One displaced Gaza resident, Samir Ayad, appealed directly to Trump to ensure that Israel complied with the proposed arrangements.

“You Trump, you should start it from your end, ceasefire, stop the assassinations and complete the Israeli army's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip,” Ayad said.

“We are not seeing any agreement at all, nothing from what he is saying,” he added.

That disconnect may prove decisive.

A Breakthrough — But Not Yet a Peace Deal

The latest development is therefore best understood not as a completed peace agreement, but as a potentially important framework whose success depends on simultaneous concessions from two deeply distrustful sides.

Hamas has signalled that it is prepared to put its weapons under Palestinian authority. Israel, meanwhile, is demanding that disarmament and demilitarisation come first. The proposed international force and Palestinian administration are intended to bridge that gap, but neither side has yet demonstrated that it is willing to make the first decisive move.

The United States is betting that phased implementation and independent verification can overcome that deadlock. Reuters reports that Washington and Board of Peace officials envisage multiple stages, with progress monitored as the process advances.

Whether that mechanism can succeed where previous arrangements have failed remains uncertain.

For now, the central contradiction remains unresolved: Hamas says Israeli withdrawal and compliance must come before it gives up its weapons; Israel says Hamas must disarm before Israeli forces withdraw.

Until that sequence is settled, Trump's announcement represents a diplomatic opening — not yet the end of the Gaza war.